SV: SV: SV: Information and Natural Languages

From: Brier S�ren <[email protected]>
Date: Mon 15 Dec 1997 - 23:57:24 CET

Dear Rafael

The idea of evolution - when it is not the reductionistic kind - is to
me an acknowledgement of time, complexity, habit formation and
change/process. This seem to be near Heraclitus?

What is you belief? I do not think it is fair to ask questions from a
hidden position, because the understanding of a question has to rely on
this conctext or language game. We are only slowly on our way to a
common language game. So come out to play. Do not hide your body and
heart inside!!

Venlig hilsen/Best wishes

Assoc. Prof. Ph. D. S�ren Brier
Royal School of Library and Information Science, Aalborg Branch
Langagervej 4, DK-9220 Aalborg �st
Telephone: +45 98 157922 , Fax: +45 98 151042
Homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/home_uk.htm
Ed. & Publisher of Cybernetics & Human Knowing
homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/cyber.htm

> ----------
> Fra: Rafael Capurro, Professor[SMTP:CAPURRO@hbi-stuttgart.de]
> Sendt: 15. december 1997 20:24
> Til: Multiple recipients of list
> Emne: Re: SV: SV: Information and Natural Languages
>
> Dear Soeren,
>
> your write:
>
> >
> > I did not say that the universe was an autopoietic system. The
> problem
> > in evolutionary theory is that if one believes in it
>
> indeed: "if one believes in it"! What kind of belief is this?
>
> you write:
> >then life has
> > arisen from the universe and some kind of continuation must exist
> > between the universe and the living beings according to the present
> > theories that find evidence that life was created after the Big
> Bang.
>
> what is exactly "a continuation"? is there only one? or many? does it
> mean: natura non facit saltus, or does it mean: causa non aequat
> effectum?
>
> >So
> > some parts of the universe is turning into observing systems.>
>
> Some parts! other parts not? what is 'a part'? why only some parts?
> are there, indeed, non-observing systems?
>
>
> > Many of
> > our present theories indicate that the universe is a whole and all
> > entities are connected by different kinds of fields (much as
> Aristotle
> > saw it). I wonder how Heidegger's theory relates to this.
>
> I wonder it too! Because Heidegger poses constantly the question of
> thinking reality as a whole ('Das Seiende im Ganzen'). This kind of
> thinking of reality as a whole is what he calls 'metaphysical
> thinking', i.e. trying to take reality 'as a whole' as something in
> front of my (as an ob-ject). This is what he questions, _physis_ is
> the Greek experience that something comes out while at the same time
> (!, at the same 'time'! what does 'time' here means?) retreating
> itself. Heraclit's _physis krypthesthai phyley_ (natures loves to
> retreat itself)
>
>
> > Now I think the Heidegger discriminates between the universe (the
> > attempt on a scientific description) and the world (of meaningful
> > relationships we live in), and that is the point you want to make.
> >
>
> yes insofar as our being-in-the-universe is a peculiar way of being.
> But Heidegger says also that we are natural beings and other kind of
> living beings are open to the world (in a restricted manner). So the
> question is not so much man, but world-openness and its being aware
> or not aware (and the kind of awareness).
>
>
>
> > As a biologist and ethologist I want to claim that living systems
> also
> > live in such a world. I will also like to claim that the theory of
> > evolution is in accordance with Heidegger's philosophy as it is an
> ever
> > developing knowledge.
> >
>
> dito
>
> > I do have problems when scientists make evolutionary theory a
> physical
> > materialistic theory and thereby make a reductionist scientific
> > knowledge claim of unnecessary strong metaphysical character.
> >
>
> me too
>
> > I do not know why you say that I postulate pseudo-subjectivity? I
> rather
> > claim a hyloistic point of view as Peirce (and as Aristotle did but
> > without a material evolutionary theory). What is your ontological
> point
> > of departure that finds this offensive as so many materialistic
> > scientists?
> >
>
> well, I have no problem thinking not only in terms of _ causa
> efficiens_ but also (as Weizs�cker repeteadly remarks) of _causa
> formalis_ which is, I think, the basis for our discussion in
> introducing the concept of information (and of information as a
> causal concept, see Peter Fleisser/Wolfang Hofk.). But looking for
> causal explanations is still looking for explanations. I think the
> matter of philosophy as a specific kind of questioning is to go
> behind (or beyond) explanations, not into mystic or mysteries, but
> into the givenness of the given... (this sounds not very clear! I
> apologize!)
>
>
> > I cannot help noticing from our discussions that the scientific and
> > even more the biological knowledge does not seem to play any
> significant
> > role in your thinking. Although I enjoy your classical and
> humanistic
> > knowledge this bothers me. All your views are very human centered.
> That
> > is also OK, but you have somehow to reflect upon our scientific
> > knowledge. But may be you think that science should not or cannot
> say
> > anything significant about the human condition and origin? Somewhere
> we
> > do not meet because of some difference in background assumptions. I
> > mentioned this because I have had similar experiences with other
> > humanist - that we are "worlds" apart.
> >
> I am indeed 'humanistic' educated. This does mean I do not appreciate
> science etc. But I try to think about science, not to take it for
> granted (in a similar way as if I were in the Middle Ages and I would
> try to think about Christian faith). This is sometimes a heretical
> attitude. We are 'worlds apart' as far as we base are assumptions in
> some kind of 'faith'. Of course, I cannot say I have no faith at
> all... I remember Ortega y Gasset in this matter when he
> distinguishes between ideas and faith (ideas y creencias). Faith is
> in this context something like Kuhn's normal science...
>
> > Venlig hilsen/Best wishes
>
> for you too
> Rafael
>
>
> > Assoc. Prof. Ph. D. S�ren Brier
> > Royal School of Library and Information Science, Aalborg Branch
> > Langagervej 4, DK-9220 Aalborg �st
> > Telephone: +45 98 157922 , Fax: +45 98 151042
> > Homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/home_uk.htm
> > Ed. & Publisher of Cybernetics & Human Knowing
> > homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/cyber.htm
> >
> > ----------
> > Fra: Rafael Capurro, Professor[SMTP:CAPURRO@hbi-stuttgart.de]
> > Sendt: 11. december 1997 16:36
> > Til: Multiple recipients of list
> > Emne: Re: SV: Information and Natural Languages
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:31:58 +0100 (MET)
> > > Reply-to: fis@listas.unizar.es
> > > From: Brier S�ren <SBR@db.dk>
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> > > Subject: SV: Information and Natural Languages
> > Dear Soeren,
> >
> > thanks for the long mail. I did not read your interesting
> > papers. As
> > I did not get any Christmas present from you until now, I would
> > very
> > much appreciate one like this!
> > >
> > > You pose such difficult questions!
> >
> > well, I hope so! it is better if we try to pose 'difficult
> > questions'
> > instead of taking things for granted...
> > >
> > you write:
> >
> > > Autopoiesis was originally defined as the state of living
> > systems by
> > > Maturana and Varela.
> > > > Luhmann has suggested a general theory of Autopoiesis . He
> > writes:
> > > "If we abstract from life and define autopoiesis as a general
> > form of a
> > > system building using self-referential closure, we would have
> > to that
> > > there are non-living autopoietic systems" p. 2 in "Essays on
> > > self-reference".
> > >
> > so we have a(n old) discussion between living and non-living
> > systems.
> > Instead of 'life' we use now the term 'autopoietic' that allows
> > us to
> > speak about (former) non-living systems as 'autopoietic' and
> > indeed
> > the whole universe as an autopoietic system. But does it make
> > any
> > sense to say (as you do at the end of this posting) that the
> > universe observes itself etc.? Does it make any sense to
> > postulate
> > this kind of pseudo-subjectivity? (the same with regard to 'the
> > evolution')
> >
> > You write:
> > > As far as I know Heidegger it is very close to his theory,
> > because an
> > > autopoietic system is always already "in the world". It
> > emerges from a
> > > world. But this world only emerges a 'the world' as the
> > system becomes
> > > aware of itself and therefore observes the difference between
> > itself and
> > > the world.
> > >
> > Heidegger's 'in-der-Welt-sein'-theory is a (in Popperian sense)
> > falsification of classical metaphysics. For metaphysics all
> > entities
> > are in the same way in space and in time. Now Heidegger was
> > looking
> > for one example where this is not the case. And this case is the
> > kind
> > of being-in-the-world that our kind of being is. 'World' is not
> > the
> > earth (not: being-on-the-earth), but 'world' means a network (!)
> > of
> > meaningful relationships (Luhmann's 'Sinn'), in which we are
> > embedded
> > 'from the very beginning' (a priori). Being-in-the-world means
> > also,
> > that we are not an encapsulated subjectivity trying to reach an
> > 'outside world', but precisely that we are always embedded in a
> > process of dis-covering what things are. Heidegger's
> > falsification of
> > metaphysics means that ontology cannot be based uncritically on
> > a
> > special kind of being (non-living, being, human being,
> > mathematical
> > beings, technical beings, divine beings etc.), but that the
> > 'meaning
> > of being' is (for us) an open task. We are continuously creating
> > or
> > 'casting' being (casting agents of being) as far as we cast 'a
> > world'
> > i.e.a 'world view'.
> >
> > > Venlig hilsen/Best wishes
> >
> > muchos saludos y Feliz Navidad!
> > Rafael
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Mon Dec 15 23:57:19 1997

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:45 CET